2012 rumors

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 11:07:56 AM MST

According to Johnson, here are the rumored gubernatorial hopefuls:

On the Democratic side, they include Attorney General Steve Bullock of Helena; state Sen. Larry Jent of Bozeman; state Transportation Director Jim Lynch of Kalispell; and state Sen. Dave Wanzenried of Missoula.

Republicans include: state Sen. Taylor Brown, R-Huntley; former U.S. Rep. Rick Hill of Helena; Dean Folkvord of Three Forks, CEO of Wheat Montana Farms and Bakery; former state GOP Chairman Erik Iverson of Missoula; national security and terrorism expert Neil Livingstone of Helena and Washington, D.C.; state Senate Majority Leader Jim Peterson of Buffalo; state Senate President Bob Story of Park City; and state Sen. Ryan Zinke of Whitefish.

On the Democratic side, Wanzenried and Bullock, IMHO, would seem to be the front-runners in that primary (and what an interesting primary that would be). Jent doesn't have the same political charisma of either Bullock or Wanzenried. And Lynch...? That one caught me by surprise. He's never run for office before, and the DoT seems a poor springboard for a political campaign...but who knows?

On the Republican side, it's interesting that many of the rumored gubernatorial candidates are political newcomers. Zinke and T. Brown have only one legislative session behind them. Folkvord's never run for public office, but as a former rodeo champion and owner of Wheat Montana, he's got an interesting profile.

Retread Rick Hill is an interesting option. Iverson's political ambition has been long-rumored, but does he have too much baggage from his years at the head of the state GOP and on Rehberg's staff? Of the rumored state senate candidates, Jim Peterson is distinctly uninspiring, but Bob Story could be an interesting dark horse candidate.

Of the bunch, I'd say Taylor Brown is probably the Republicans' strongest candidate. He's got a high profile in the state, a ton of money, a radio network, and could probably easily tap into Conrad Burns' former political network.

But...the biggest name is missing from this bunch: Dennis Rehberg. And Johnson links his name to the 2012 Senate race. Which, frankly, I find surprising. It'd be a lot tougher race than governor, but maybe Rehberg thinks the political winds favor him. Still, 2012 will be in another era, politically speaking, and in the middle of another presidential race.

Steve Daines' name was mentioned for the Senate race, too, but, of course he couldn't beat Bob Kelleher in the 2008 primary.

Update: My bad! Daines, of course, was Brown's running mate in their epic 2008 loss to Schweitzer. I confused him with Kirk Bushman, the other businessman-turned-politico the GOP offered up that year. My bad.

Tester releases revised Forest Jobs and Recreation Act

by: The Office of Sen. Jon Tester

Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 16:51:12 PM MST

You can read the new draft at: http://tester.senate.gov/Legis...

The draft is a revision of Title I of the legislation, written in response to a discussion draft recently put forward by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where the bill awaits a vote.

The bottom line is that under the new, made-in-Montana draft, the outcome on the ground would be the same as it would have been in the original Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.  The only thing different is the process involved.

Unlike the Committee's document, Tester's new draft retains the timber and restoration certainties that were proposed by the original bill, which was introduced in July of 2009.  He has said he will only support a bill that contains the four carefully balanced provisions (timber, wilderness, recreation and restoration) that resulted from years of Montanans working together.

Tester's most recent proposal also creates a new national forest initiative that can apply to other forests in the country.  This national framework directs the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to select several forests on which to conduct forest restoration work aimed at creating timber jobs and restoring watersheds.  But through this bill, the first forests to be considered for this work will be the three Montana forests it was originally designed for: the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, the Three Rivers District of the Kootenai, and the Seeley District of the Lolo.

This discussion draft also contains new ideas Tester heard from many Montanans over the past year-from emails, phone calls, meetings and seven public, well attended and well advised listening sessions.  Ideas included in the new discussion draft include:

• Prioritizing Wildland Urban Interface land (land near communities at high risk of wildfire) when selecting areas for the stewardship contracts.
• Expanding the area eligible for stewardship contracting in Three Rivers District of the Kootenai National Forest in order to protect grizzly bear habitat.
• Adding language for "Best Value" stewardship contracting, which requires contracts to be awarded on the basis of achieving best value to the government. A variety of criteria, including weighted local preference, would be used in making the award determination.

From here, we can expect several more drafts of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act until Tester and the Committee find enough common ground to move the bill forward.

Finally, it's worth noting that the Forest Service has indicated support for the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act since its hearing last December.  During a March visit to Montana, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said: "We're going to continue to work with Sen. Tester to accomplish what the bill is supposed to do... There's a tremendous opportunity here." [Montana Standard, 4-7-10] http://www.mtstandard.com/news...

Tester's Transparent Process

by: Matt Singer

Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 10:29:51 AM MST

That being said, Matthew Koehler is way off base here. The Energy Committee draft of the legislation isn't a Tester draft. In fact, it is so much not a Tester draft that Tester actually opposes the details of the draft. If the Energy Committee wants to release drafts, that is the Committee's prerogative, not necessarily Jon Tester's. In fact, Jon Tester would be a big jerk if he started publicly releasing other people's documents without their permission.

It would also be politically stupid of Jon to do so. The Energy Committee decides his proposal's fate. Going around them to publicly disseminate their documents is a quick way of assuring the end of his process.

All of this is my way of making another point. Through this while process, Jon Tester has established what is probably the most transparent legislative effort in the history of the Congress. It is to accomplish something that many Montanans support and some (very loud individiauls) don't. That's fine. But the complaints about transparency here, especially when echoed by respectable media outlets, could portend a very dangerous outcome.

Rather than applauding Tester for posting every draft his office has produced or his public responses to feedback received, Jon has come under fire for maintaining secrecy around, say, the committee drafts.

Notably, this hullabaloo over committee drafts is one reason why they are typically kept secret. The U.S. Senate is already a nearly impossible location to...do things. Exposing every considered option to a ton of scrutiny creates a lot of incentives to do even less.

Mark my words -- if the Tester Forest bill dies, not because Montanans oppose the substance or because the Energy Committee could not ultimately come together on the substance but because of bullshit process arguments, the lesson to Washington, DC, will not be to become more transparent but to become less transparent. The lesson will be to handle controversy by moving quickly and silently.

My feelings on this are colored significantly by Matthew Yglesias' recent insightful post on hypocrisy. Even if Jon Tester is being a little hypocritical here by being less transparent than ideal, the reality is that he is being far more transparent than the norm. Smart supporters of transparency would (and are) applauding Tester's behavior in order to raise the bar for Congressional behavior in the future.

Conversely, Tester's strongest process critics don't really care about process. As should be clear, they're very much outcome-focused. The process argument has emerged largely because most Montanans support the logging provisions that are the basis of their actual opposition.

Winners and losers of the draft Forest bill's opaque transparency

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 07:36:04 AM MST

Winner: John Adams. In tracking down the draft bill, Adams wrote an extremely fair post about transparency, Jon Tester, and the legislative process in the US Senate.

Did Jon's staff egregiously mislead Adams' about the existence of a draft bill? Yes. Did members of the collaborative group working on the bill see the draft? Yes. Did Jon Tester promise more transparency than we've received? Yes. But do US Senate committees typically share draft legislation with the public? No. And is the bill's semi-transparent collaborative legislative-writing process typical for Washington DC? No.

What we've got is a quasi-public process that's more open than the inside-the-Beltway gang is used to, and much less open than Montanans want. Is it Tester's fault? No. It wasn't his draft, and the other members of the committee didn't make the transparency pledges that Tester did. (Tester promised to make his changes public.) If there's fault to be put on Tester, it's that his rhetoric didn't match reality. An up-front explanation and tempering of expectations at the beginning of the process would have served him well.

Loser: Jon Tester. Not for falling short of his rhetoric, but for opposing the removal of mandated logging language from the draft:

A "discussion draft" of Tester's S. 1470 legislation started circulating last week among critics of the bill. This version did not have the requirement to log at least 10,000 acres a year in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Kootenai national forests, or the one-year limitation on U.S. Forest Service environmental reviews. It also deleted language from the wilderness sections that would have allowed military helicopter training and off-road vehicle use for livestock herding.

For his part, Tester said this week that he would not accept removing the logging mandate.

"There are a number of changes folks would like to see made to S. 1470," Tester said. "Some will be implemented, all will be considered. Make no mistake, if the timber mandates are not part of the deal, I'll pull the plug on the whole thing."

The mandate makes no sense. Sure, I get why they put it in - it's probably an end run around lawsuits against logging ventures on public lands. But...a mandate doesn't change the legal conditions around the lawsuits, and doesn't account for dropping timber prices - if the bottom falls out of the timber market...and no one wants to cut...then what?

I'm no free-market maven, but it seems...irrational...to force supply on a market without any demand.

If the timber industry wants to log public lands, they should probably work together with environmental groups to make sure they're following the law and pay attention to environmental concerns. Shoving timber on the market seems a pretty poor "compromise."

Winner: The public. Tester's forest bill has been more transparent than most, and the controversies around the draft only make the issue keener and puts more pressure on Tester to follow through on his promises of openness. Hopefully, it'll put some pressure on the Senate to make its committee-work more open. But don't hold your breath.

Losers: Conservatives. Until Dennis Rehberg starts releasing drafts of bills discussed in the House Appropriations committee, I think we can all agree that conservatives' criticism of Tester's efforts to make his committee-work open and transparent is clearly hypocritical.

A Bright Green Rumor in the Flathead

by: Montana Cowgirl

Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:22:38 AM MST

It was that Sen. Ryan Zinke, the Republican Senator from Whitefish, is so pissed off that neither Tester, Baucus nor Schweitzer nor Rehberg can get their act together and get a final agreement with British Columbia to prevent coal mining on the North Fork of the Flathead River, that he is planning to introduce a bond measure in the legislature to seal the deal, and take the credit.

The issue with the North Fork is that the coal plots on the Canadian side are worth a bloody fortune, while those on the Montana side are not.  So, while BC and Montana have struck a deal on a moratorium, it hinges on finding a way to compensate BC for about $17 million worth of sunken costs on their end.  So we need to send over the border some federal or state cash, or perhaps some mineral rights.

The word on the street up in the Whitefish, where this issue looms extremely large, is that Zinke will introduce a bond measure in the state legislature to accomplish this.  At the bottom of all of this is the filth and effluent and goo that would run off into the river and into the Montana Flathead valley if the Canadian mining were to go forward.  Max has been talking about it for 30 years but has never actually done anything about it. Tester doesn't seem much engaged at all. Schweitzer got an  MOU signed, but it's not more than a piece of paper that states desire and intent. The essential thing is money.

This move by Zinke would be brilliant. Zinke is a former  special forces commander and otherwise a somewhat moderate Republican, often mentioned as a likely US Senate candidate. If he pulled off a deal with British Columbia where the Big Three Dems could not, he could possibly win the Flathead in a statewide election with 70 percent of the vote (the usual 60 plus  a few hard-core conservation voters). That, with a respectable showing in Missoula as well (where the issue is also big), would make him formidable.

And beyond that, he'd be able to talk about how he got something done, something big and good. That's not something you don't often hear from a Republican.

Jon Tester on finance reform

by: Jay Stevens

Wed May 26, 2010 at 08:25:37 AM MST

Is it planting time right now?

No, we got that done five weeks ago.

What did you put in the ground?

I put in peas, two different kinds of wheat, and that's it. The rotation's rather simple now. We'll have some hay, some grass hay and alfalfa hay and put that up in June, first part of July, and go from there.

So let's talk about the financial regulation bill...

Overall, I think this is a good bill. It's a bipartisan bill, which I think is positive. A little longer than a year and a half ago, the country was on the cusp of financial meltdown. Paulson came in and said we've got to have all this bailout money for Wall Street, and it was given. I didn't support it, but it was given.

So it was obvious we needed to do something to get the Wall Street banks, the mortgage banks, the investment banks, and other big financial folks under control. I think we've done all that with this bill. I think it does end "too big to fail," and I think it does end the bailouts that most good people in this country despise.

How does it end "too big to fail"? First of all, it sets up a systemic risk council to monitor them for risk and bad decisions and poor judgment. And if they do get to the point where they begin to go down, it forces those big banks to pay for their own liquidation, so taxpayer dollars aren't involved. And that's a positive.

It also streamlines regulation, which I also think is positive, because it helps regulators keep their eye on the ball and better understand and anticipate what's going on in the financial sector, to anticipate risk  and prevent another disaster.

And the final thing, it creates a strong and independent consumer protection bureau, and arms it with the tools to go after the bad actors, and also forces all the players to play by the same rules as everybody else.

I think overall, it's a good bill, and we've worked hard on it over the last year, year and a half. I also worked hard to make sure community banks are held as harmless as possible to focus on Main street, family farms, small businesses, and ranches. Overall, I think it's a good bill.

I'd like to ask a couple of questions about some amendments to the bill that you worked on in this bill. First was the one that you proposed, along with Senator Hutchinson. Could you talk about that?

We proposed a bill, to ensure the FDIC insurance fees were based on risk. So if you have risky banks out there, they'd pay higher fees than banks that weren't so risky. I think this benefits the rural community banks in a big way.

In fact, if my figures are right - I could be off on this - currently, the banks that have 20 percent of the assets pay 30 percent of the fees to the FDIC insurance fund. This is going to change that. This is going to change the fee structure down and into line to match the risk with the community banks, which is very small.

You voted against an amendment that would exempt auto dealerships from oversight by the consumer protection bureau in the Federal Reserve. Can you explain that vote?

The main reason I voted against that is that they've already got protections in the bill. But short of that, I don't think we should be exempting or carving anyone out of this thing. It's a poor precedent. If they play by the rules, they'll be okay. If not, then the hammer could drop on them.  But I think it's dangerous to start throwing out different financial groups from regulation. I think it sets a poor precedent.

Something you backed was Bernie Sanders' audit of the Fed. Why was that?

I think transparency and disclosure is good. I don't care if you're talking about posting your schedule online or whatever it might be. In this particular case, I think Bernie had a good amendment, and it added a little more transparency to the Fed, and I think that's positive. That's why I supported it.

There's been some criticism of some of your votes around this bill on the blog and among some progressives. I thought I'd bring up some of the issues, and give you a chance to respond. One of the things that irked me was when you stated opposition to taxing financial institutions that took TARP money. Why did you oppose that?

I remember raising questions about it, but there was never a vote on that.

If it came to a vote now, would you support it?

I think the bottom line is how it's extracted and how it's applied, and all that. Certainly I wouldn't be for it or opposed to it until I see it, let's just put it that way. I know it probably seems like a cop out on your end, but it's the truth. I usually don't 'til I see 'em. I don't commit one way or the other until I look at it.

Another thing that angered some progressives was your vote against the Brown-Kaufman amendment, which would have capped the size of big banks. I was wondering if you could explain your rationale behind that vote.

A couple things - and I'm actually glad you brought this question up. It's something we worked on in committee, and we set up a systemic risk council to determine the risky banks out there. [The Brown-Kaufman amendment] had no connection to risk. On one hand, it could have been overly punitive; on the other it could be under-punitive. I think the bill was set up - and, in fact, there were amendments put on - for the systemic risk council and the regulators to set capital limits based on risk. That's really the key. It should be based on risk. That's what's important. The risk of failure is really where the problem is.

There were also complaints about amendments that disappeared in the banking committee that addressed the loopholes in the regulations on derivatives...

First of all, this was an odd bill in that there were no amendments offered in committee before it was sent out. All the work that was done on amendments was done after the bill was written up; we managed to get it out of committee with no amendments offered up.

I would say that the Senate bill has a very strong derivatives title. It's stronger than the House's derivatives title.

We were talking about transparency a minute ago, I think this adds a lot of transparency to the derivatives market. I think it's something that needed to happen. It provides a platform for trading, I think that's something that needed to happen. I think the final language on derivatives in this Senate bill is pretty damn good.

What next? Bullets for Babies?

by: Jay Stevens

Fri May 21, 2010 at 12:42:40 PM MST

"This is for us an essence of our democracy," Zherka told him, adding that the city's strict gun legislation "is essential in our view to us maintaining a healthy society." He noted that a federal judge recently ruled that the current laws comport with the 2nd Amendment.

"I don't think you would ask or accept the D.C. Council legislating on behalf of Montana," he said. "We would like that same kind of respect and equality."

What the hell is a Montana Senator doing legislating his beliefs to a city halfway across the country? Is it okay to do so only if those beliefs are conservative? (Bitterroot and pro-discrimination Holy Rollers apparently think so.)

Question: at what point, if ever, do Montana politicians drop their Messianic gun crusade on behalf of Gary Marbut?

Tester op-ed on Wall Street Reform

by: The Office of Sen. Jon Tester

Fri May 21, 2010 at 07:49:41 AM MST

Most importantly, the Wall Street reform bill once and for all ends taxpayer-funded bailouts of Wall Street banks and investment firms.  It finally gets rid of the notion that one private company can somehow be "too big to fail."

I never bought that argument.

Unlike Most Democratic Sheep, Schweitzer Not Afraid to Stick Dagger in Tea Party, on National TV

by: Montana Cowgirl

Mon May 17, 2010 at 16:44:32 PM MST

The Tea Party movement has spooked many Democrats.  Watch the national news, and see how most Democrats who serve in competitive states or districts are not willing to stand up and take the Tea Partiers on. Instead, they walk on eggshells, always reluctant to criticize them for fear of becoming a target of them or for fear of losing a few independent voters who get their news from Fox. "You are seeing some understandable anger" is the usual refrain uttered by everybody from the President to just about every Democratic US Senator or member of Congress or Governor, unless they are lucky enough to serve an electorate that is heavily democratic and thus safe.

But here is a clip of Schweitzer on the Rachel Maddow show (yay!), calmly sticking a long dagger into the Tea folks, making them look like the foolish and ignorant hypocrites they are. Here's a link to the transcript for those of you reading this at work.  And here's a quote I especially like:

The tea party people get up in the morning and they make phone calls to each other that they're going to go to a rally.  And they use a subsidized telephone system.  Then they drive down a road that was built by the government that is protected by government workers called highway patrolmen. They get to a rally and they carry their signs and they are protected by the firemen and the policemen who are in that town.  And then they eagerly drive home and say, "It was a success.  We're against the government."

I also like his stance on education,

It's not a sin to be frugal.  It's not a sin to challenge expenses. But it is a sin to cut back on education for our most valuable resource.

This is far from the only place where Schweitzer isn't afraid to say what is right even if it doesn't poll well or get him conservative voters.  Here in one of the more conservative states in America, he has made speeches praising the Canadian health system (daring Montana voters to find a Canadian citizen that doesn't like her country's healthcare).

He has openly advocated a withdrawal from Afghanistan--a war which he sees as not worth the lives or expense. He has welcomed American Indians into his government and into the political system with an emphasis not seen in Montana's political history, treating them as the sovereigns they are.  He has gone after the Obama Administration, (and perhaps Baucus and Tester, implicitly...), for selling out to Big Pharma, and not allowing Montana citizens to buy cheap medication from Canada; and recently, he went to Butte to stand up publicly in defense of Saudi and other Arab students who were being taunted and attacked by local redneck douchebags.

He has made historic investments in Montana's HHS budget, in help for the poor, the disabled, and education, and has been happy to tout them even as the Tea Party criticizes him.

Tester: the good, the bad, and the ugly

by: Jay Stevens

Fri May 07, 2010 at 12:41:37 PM MST

White House spokesman Adam Abrams said the Obama administration has "set out from day one to create an unprecedented level of openness in government," including requiring faster access to documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act and the posting of government records online that weren't previously available, such as logs showing White House visitors by name.

And an amendment he proposed for the financial regulatory overhaul bill was adopted, 98 - 0:

Large banks would be forced to pay higher premiums for federal deposit insurance under an amendment the Senate added Thursday to the financial regulatory overhaul bill....

The FDIC currently insures bank deposits of up to $250,000. If premiums are based on total assets instead of domestic deposits only, large banks, which have huge asset holdings, would pay a greater share of deposit insurance premiums....

"Small community banks make rural America run," Tester said. "They don't deserve to be left holding the bag for the risky behavior of big banks."

That's the good.

Now the bad. In an opportunity to break up the biggest banks and cap their size, so as not to concentrate most of the nation's wealth in the hands of a few mega-financial institutions, thereby increasing the chance of financial collapse if they - as they did in the recent crash - speculate wildly, Jon sided with Max Baucus and Wall Street's finanical oligarchy, and voted "no."

Tester's Public Online Information Act

by: Matt Singer

Thu May 06, 2010 at 09:12:34 AM MST

The Senator had a brief conference call this morning to outline the bill and take questions. I asked about the search functionality required and also about the ability to link back to specific pages of specific documents, embed files in other websites, etc. Jon didn't go into that. I can attest to the fact that Jon Tester is a pretty sharp guy, but a geek he is not.

I've had a chance to read over the bill. The language appears to me to be strong in terms of requiring easy access by people and also taking advantage of newer technologies.

It also sounded like the text of this bill is currently stronger than companion legislation in the House, in large part because it includes disclosure of public contracts and grants. So good for our Senator on that front.

Jon Tester pushes for transparency in government

by: Jay Stevens

Thu May 06, 2010 at 09:10:55 AM MST

Today, Senator John Tester introduced legislation that would revolutionize how the public gains access to government information. The Public Online Information Act (POIA) requires all government-held information that is already required to be publicly available to be posted online, subject to common-sense exceptions. Representative Steve Israel (NY-02) introduced companion legislation (HR 4858) in the House of Representatives in March.

POIA addresses the problem that much government information is hard to find and difficult to use. It ensures that government information from across all executive branch agencies will be available to everyone with a few keystrokes on a computer. It also brings together all three branches of government to figure out how to best make information available to the public.

Good news. This from The Hill:

Tester has been making his name as a reform-minded lawmaker. Earlier this week, the Montana Democrat signed onto a bill, sponsored by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), that would bar senators and House members from lobbying for life once they leave Congress....

The senator said that he would look for "any opportunity to get this bill through," such as attaching it to must-pass legislation. He said he also expects the costs in putting public information up online would be minimal and within federal agencies' budgets. Tester said the Obama administration is seemingly in favor of the bill.

That's why we put him there!

US Chamber to Step Up Fight Against Banking Reform in Montana

by: Matt Singer

Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 08:40:46 AM MST

The Hill article portrays this as potentially being about seeking some changes to the bill. Frankly, a lot of this shit is in the weeds and well outside my areas of expertise, but my sense also is that here, as in healthcare, the Chamber isn't playing to amend or fix. They're playing to kill because a small number of their members care deeply about this sector of the economy.

Wall Street is obscenely out of hand, especially for a sector of the economy that fundamentally doesn't do anything. We don't need financial innovation. We need fucking banks that work. More of those, please.

Schweitzer's Drug Play

by: Montana Cowgirl

Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 03:20:06 AM MST

Two questions arise. First, why had the issue gone dormant? Short Answer: The Obama Administration cut a deal with the Pharmaceutical Industry, early in the healthcare reform game, in which Obama pledged to kill any efforts to reimport drugs from Canada in return for the Drug Industry running TV Ads and other media--$80 million worth--in support of Obama's healthcare plan.

That's a shady deal by any measurement, unless the ultimate Obama plan finds some way to drastically reduce or subsidize prescription prices. Thus far the plan does not appear to do so.

But more troubling, and way under the radar, is the fact that our senators have taken the bait. Both Tester and Baucus recently (and quietly) voted against a Senate Bill that would have authorized the reimportation of prescription drugs (made by American companies) from Canada.    

Beyond that, there lurks the more dark and deplorable history of Baucus giving the pharmaceutical industry one of the greatest government corporate giveaways in history.  Those were the days when Baucus was hugging George Bush as a way to get re-elected (how times have changed).  And the most insidious part of that 2002 vote by Baucus, of course, was that Baucus's Chief of Staff left Baucus's office shortly thereafter, to cash in in a new job lobbying the Senate on behalf of the drug industry, employment which quickly made him a millionaire.

The second question is what the White House and/or Secretary Sebelius is going to tell Schweitzer. Has Schweitzer gotten too cute? Has he poked the tiger one time too many? Will Obama somehow retaliate or freeze-out our Governor? Or, has Schweitzer put them in an impossible position and thus revived a very important issue, and put it on course for some sort of resolution? Perhaps even a concession from the drug industry that is something more than a promise to run stupid and ineffective campaign ads for a stupid and ineffective corporate giveaway which the White House is trying to sell us?

This is a major poke in the eye of the Obama team and is sure to get some national attention (as Schweitzer always seems to do.)  But hey, the Obama Administration deserves it. 

Whose side are you on, Jon?

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 15:19:26 PM MST

Sirota:

Thus, if Giannoulias, it would be a clear disaster. He is literally the walking personification of all that the public clearly despises right now - an Establishment politician closely connected to the industry that has destroyed the economy.

With him as the nominee, Democrats could lose yet another senate seat, and more broadly, they could lose any national high ground they need to reclaim. At a time when the Democratic Party desperately needs to reclaim the populist economic mantle and prevent Republicans from being able to mount their own right-wing populist campaign, Giannoulias would become the face of a Democratic Party that has already become increasingly synonymous in voters minds with the most hated aspects of the financial industry.

Like Sirota, I've been railing against big business and its too-cozy relationship with government for...years? At least ever since I've had a blog to write on. And one of the most egregious abuses of taxpayer money was the recent bank bailout, in which the high-finance institutions that caused the recent financial crash with rampant and irresponsible investing after lobbying the government to deregulate its industry received billions. (Meanwhile, we can't even pass a health care bill that would give subsidies to people without health insurance.)

There's been some financial regulatory bills circulating in Congress - most notably Chris Dodd's, which, among other things, would create a Consumer Protection Agency intended to streamline bank and finance regulations and protect consumers from the predatory actions of lenders. (Hint: you can't have a "free" market without consumer access to information and protection from swindlers.) And in the SOTU speech yesterday, President Obama vowed to impose a "fee" on the high-finance institutions that caused the crash.

Here's the kicker, though. Jon Tester appears to oppose these regulatory reforms.

Tester is less enthusiastic about the administration's plan to impose a new tax on financial firms that received government aid through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

"I'm very concerned that the tax could be passed on to customers," said Tester, who called for the idea to get close examination by lawmakers....

Proposals to create a new consumer financial protection agency aren't high on Tester's list of desired changes, though.

"Fundamentally, I'm not crazy about building another agency," he said, but added that the idea "wouldn't be a deal-killer on my part" and indicated that Senate lawmakers are debating whether the consumer-protection function might be folded into an existing agency, rather than assigned to a newly created one.

That's right. Our progressive populist Montana farmer is planning to use his Senate Banking Committee to...oppose consumer protection and a tax on big banks?

Let's be frank. Banks are not popular. And the Democratic party is quickly becoming identified with high financial interests, not only in Illinois, but apparently closer to home, in Montana.

And hasn't Jon seen the results of the Massachusetts special election? They weren't clamoring for more backroom dealing and a cozier relationship with corporate America. They voted against Coakley because she was seen as the establishment candidate. This position is electoral suicide. And it's bad policy.

Look, I'm fine with Jon being a one-term Senator...if he lost his seat fighting for his core values. But this? Defending huge, East Coast financial institutions' interests from the little guy?

The Most Important Deficit Reduction Move Jon Tester Could Make

by: Matt Singer

Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 14:51:49 PM MST

"For a decade, both parties have swept America's debt problem under the carpet.  And like most Montanans, I'm fed up with the mess.

"The only way to get our fiscal house in order is to put politics aside and work together to create good-paying jobs, making Wall Street work for Main Street."

"That's why I crossed party lines to vote against the bailouts of Wall Street and the U.S. auto industry.  And that's why I voted today to create a bipartisan panel to recommend spending cuts."

The basic idea is that most of the real solutions for dealing with the deficit -- bending the health care curve, raising taxes, or seriously rethinking the defense budget -- are politically difficult votes. That's why a health care bill that does two of those three is currently stuck in Congress with some small chance left to pass. On the third issue -- the defense budget -- it means actually building some sort of willingness to stand up to military contractors, their significant lobbies, and the "weak on security" storylines that they and their Congressional lackeys will spin if you seriously evaluate their spending.

How does any of this get easier with a bipartisan commission whose recommendations require a super-duper-pooper majority? It doesn't.

Reality is that fixing America's fiscal outlook isn't at this point a policy problem. We have a bill in Congress that will seriously reduce the long-term deficit. We can write additional bills tomorrow to do the same. The problem is that Judd Gregg, for all his hemming and hawing about budget deficits won't do anything about it. The problem is that Evan Bayh and Blanche Lincoln crow about deficits but continue to vote for massive tax cuts that will worsen the long-term deficit picture (Jon has cast some of these votes, as well).

Governing is occasionally about making hard choices. Those hard choices are compounded by a press corps whose understanding of the federal budget often seems downright abysmal. But there's no reason to believe that a blue ribbon panel will convince a single GOP member of Congress to vote for a tax cut or meaningful health care cost controls or the kinds of defense cuts that don't really threaten national security.

For now, anyone seriously interested in long-term deficit reduction should be acting to get the health care bill moving again. If that means reaching across the rotunda and pledging to work with House members on sidecar provisions to move through budget reconciliation or publicly or privately stepping up pressure to get something passed, that's what it will take to get this deficit reduced.

Virtually everything else is basically a game of kick the can.

Cobell wins trust lawsuit

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 16:37:17 PM MST

Cobell:

Under the terms of the Settlement in Cobell v. Salazar, the federal government will create a $1.412 billion Accounting/Trust Administration Fund and a $2 billion Trust Land Consolidation Fund. The Settlement also creates a federal Indian Education Scholarship fund of up to $60 million to improve access to higher education for Indian youth. The Settlement also includes a commitment by the federal government to appoint a commission that will oversee and monitor specific improvements in the Department's accounting for and management of individual Indian trust assets, going forward.

The Missoulian's Buffalo Post has links related to the story, and video of the Interior Department's announcement of the settlement.

The news of the settlement followed just a couple of weeks after the president's promise that he would raise the Indian Health Service budget by 13 percent - not nearly enough money to fully fund tribal health care services, but a welcome infusion of cash for a system in great trouble. Certainly, both the settlement and the increase in the IHS budget are policies that are the exact opposite of the Bush administration's, which stonewalled any dealing with the lawsuit, and cut funding for IHS.You have to think that Montana's late 2008 primary had a lot to do with the recent attention paid to First American interests. Without Obama's effective wooing of tribal support in the state, he might not now have paid as much attention to tribal issues as he is.

And let's not forget that Jon Tester's defeat of Conrad Burns removed a considerable roadblock to Native American interests. As part of his platform, Jon vowed to fight both to raise HIS funding and help settle the Cobell lawsuit. Who knows what role Jon played in all this; what we do know, is that Montana voters removed an obnoxious roadblock to fair restitution for federally managed tribal lands.

Elections have consequences.

Don't mistake this as giving praise to Obama and Tester for this settlement. Obama's administration is merely doing what other administrations should have, and Jon's role - whatever it was - pales in comparison to Eloise Cobell's. She's an excellent example of how dogged determination combined with a just cause can make significant change...

Tester: support Chris Dodd's financial regulation legislation

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 14:36:41 PM MST

Dodd said outdated rules leave regulators unable to keep pace with the industry.

"Our financial regulatory system, created piece by piece over decades with little thought given to how it would function as a whole, is simply unable to prevent staggering greed and unthinkable recklessness from threatening our economic security," said Dodd....

Dodd's legislation would create a single bank agency aimed at preventing regulator "shopping" by firms seeking lenient oversight. He also proposed setting up a systemic-risk agency and a Consumer Financial Protection Agency to police firms for credit-card and mortgage lending abuses.

The bill would also remove the bank oversight powers of the Fed and FDIC and create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, whose function would be to monitor and regulate financial institutions and the products they offer, including credit cards, mortgages, and other traded investments:

Under the proposed legislation, the agency would have the power to monitor the financial marketplace, including loans and credit cards, with consumers' interests top of mind. Existing agencies that have that power today have other industry monitoring responsibilities as well.

The agency would focus on making sure financial product disclosures are easy to understand so consumers know what they are getting themselves into as well as on financial literacy education and research. It also would have the power to write rules and enforce them on issues such as arbitration for credit card disputes.

The bill has hit a familiar snag: "centrist" Democrats, and nay-saying Republicans.

One of the Democrats on Dodd's Banking Committee is Jon Tester. In recent statements, Jon's reaffirmed his commitment to ensuring that "members of the insurance industry" have their "feet to the fire," and that national financial institutions are "held accountable" while local banks aren't subject to excessive regulation. One way he can be true to his rhetoric is to support Dodd's banking bill when it comes up to vote....

Rehberg to challenge Tester in 2012?

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 10:11:48 AM MST

Montana Rep. Dennis Rehberg met with Republican recruiters about a 2012 Senate run against Democrat Jon Tester on Thursday.

Rehberg, who was seen exiting the National Republican Senatorial Committee's Capitol Hill headquarters Thursday morning, is the state's lone representative in the House.

There's mutual interest between Rehberg and NRSC officials, according to a source familiar with both sides.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said Thursday night that Tester's represented his constituents well and will be formidable when he seeks re-election in three years.

"I don't think it would be wise" to challenge him, Baucus said.

Closer Than We've Ever Been; So Far Left to Go

by: Matt Singer

Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 12:04:26 PM MST

But people have no doubt seen the commentary in the last 48 hours regarding the fact that we don't have 60 votes for cloture in the Senate yet. As I have been before, I'm fundamentally optimistic about this. I think the CBO scoring of the merged bill will come back favorable. I think scores on amendments to remove the public option will put the deficit burden on opponents of the public option. I think choice is fundamentally popular and that Republicans and the sell-out Democrats are facing an uphill battle against polling.

All that being said, the fact that we can't move to a consensus point yet on the public option means that progressives have less leverage on three other important points: financing mechanisms, subsidies for affordability, and the strength of the employer mandate. That may be the reason for the foot dragging. Who knows?

But a few other thoughts:

1. I don't know if Max Baucus has been trying to gut this bill like a fish or busting ass to strengthen it back to his white paper while making sure he has the votes to move forward. I do know that the general momentum in this fight right now is with reformers and specifically with public option advocates and that is both a result of progressive pressure, progressive insiders, and the slow and steady work of Max and his staff and others like him in Congress.
2. The last 48 hours should have proven that while the problem in DC is with 40 given bad votes that require a bill that "runs the table" with Dems and the two Independents, that still means that putting together a bill that can pass is a damn tough thing to do. Both the Senate and the House will be moving toward floor consideration of their respective bills soon. That is historic. It is amazing. But we don't have the votes for cloture yet.
3. The Senate is a uniquely messed up institution. If you've been in the weeds, you've read that Joe Lieberman has agreed to let the health care bill be considered...because the world's greatest deliberative body requires sixty votes for debatee to even begin if a single Senator objects. This same body requires 60 votes to end debate in such a manner that the most unpopular political party in the history of the country or something can literally find one grandstanding member of the majority and lock down the chamber. Why no one has launched a full-frontal assault on the chamber's structure and existence in American political life is, frankly, beyond me.